Main menu

Tolerance?

Anti-gay marriage website attackedNZ Herald 30 July 2012
A website opposed to a law change that would allow gay marriage has been removed from the internet, less than 12 hours after its launch. The website at www.protectmarriage.org.nzfeatured an online petition to Parliament and a tool to let people contact MPs to express their views. But by midday the site had crashed after a large-scale denial of service attack. The IP addresses associated with the attack were being actively blocked and by 2pm the website was up and running again. However, by 5pm the website domain had been completely removed. “Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed,” the web host said. It was not known where the attacks were coming from, Mr McCoskrie said. Mr McCoskrie was told it was a fairly major attack, which was aimed at the protectmarriage website but also took down quite a few of the host’s other websites. “You always hope you can have a robust debate about ideas, and show respect for each other but when you’re trying to take out each other’s website it kind of suggests that you’re not going to get a good debate, so that’s disappointing.”http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10823280

Anti gay marriage website shut downStuff.co.nz 30 July 2012
A website dedicated to opposing gay marriage has been removed from the internet the day it was launched after it was the target of one of the “largest unprecedented attacks” on a website in New Zealand. The “Protect Marriage” website, launched today by Family First, crashed in a matter of hours as a result of a “large-scale denial of service attack” according to the site’s webhost. It was back up and running at 1pm, but had been removed completely by the webhosting company later this afternoon, to “protect its own servers”.http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/7378769/Anti-gay-marriage-website-shut-down

Site opposing gay marriage attackedOtago Daily Times 30 July 2012
A Christchurch web host has removed a website opposing a law change that would allow gay marriage from its servers, following an attack on the site that also affected others hosted by the company. In a message displayed at protectmarriage.org.nz, 24/7 Hosting & Web Design said: “Due to large scale Denial of Service attacks against this domain it has been decided to ensure the stability and security of our servers and network this account has been removed.”http://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/219329/site-opposing-gay-marriage-attacked

Post navigation

29 comments for “Tolerance?”

James White

30 July 2012 at 5:01 pm

“One of the largest unprecedented attacks on NZ history”

You haven’t grasped how to use the word “unprecedented”. Just thought you’d like to know.

Why I’m more hung up on your grammar than your outdated opinions is anyone’s guess. Possibly because they’re just that – outdated. Quickly becoming irrelevant, and soon to be resigned to history along with apartheid, opposition to inter-racial marriage, and other forms of ugly, banal thinking.

I’ll be interested to see whether you post this, given your views on a free and open debate.

But, yes, the grammar. Just because you’re wrong, doesn’t mean you can’t be correct.

Bob, I don’t respect your views, but I certainly respect your right to voice them loudly and often, and the fact that I suspect most Kiwis are repulsed by Family First’s perversions of history, theology, and logic only makes me more supportive of your right to voice your position.

Please don’t tar the entire gay community with the same brush as the minority of activists who have stupidly and unacceptably attacked your site. I for one am personally quite prepared to tolerate your voice, just as you tolerate mine. The problem is, as a young gay man with a husband (in all but equal title), and perhaps one day a family, I want more than mere tolerance. I demand acceptance and equality for me and my family – not from you personally, you are free to continue opposing homosexuality in your quaint way – but from our secular society more broadly.

I sincerely hope your site stays up, and I look forward to listening to more radio interviews with you.

Ali Preston-Marshall

30 July 2012 at 10:01 pm

I read such strong words (in the above comments) as outdated, ugly, banal, repulsed, perverted (in history, theology and logic!) and quaint; and I feel compelled to say that I find everything that Bob says and stands for none of those things at all! I am an ordinary Kiwi who is grateful for someone who will stand up for common sense and the good old ten commandments, which includes not committing adultery. The comments above are ironic in that they, even while claiming to respect Bob’s views, show such huge arrogance and intolerance in their strength of dismissal of Family First (and therefore all of us ordinary God-fearing Kiwis who gratefully support this organisation). Keep up the good work Bob (and well done passing School C English!)

bob

30 July 2012 at 10:20 pm

“I want more than mere tolerance. I demand acceptance and equality for me and my family”
@ Matty Smith – but that’s the point Matty – you cannot demand acceptance, it has to be given freely. Otherwise the gay lobby just becomes another authoritarian regime suppressing all dissent from their ‘new orthodoxy of opinion’.

And ‘equality’ has become a fashionable, near hysterical, demand that is rather meaningless outside of it’s correct context. Why should the state recognise gay marriage? Gay couples cannot assist the state in creating the next generation of society, so the state has no reason to endorse gay marriage.

It’s as silly as an able-bodied person demanding the state provide them with a wheelchair and access ramps. If that person doesn’t need it, they can’t just scream ‘equality’ to get it. Equal treatment does not mean identical treatment.

Hamish Price

30 July 2012 at 11:10 pm

Hi Bob, how are you?

I find your comments interesting. On the one hand you say this debate is about the definition of the word “marriage”. Given your self-professed hatred for English, and the fact that you got 58% in School Cert English, do you really think you are qualified to lead the public debate on the definition of a word?

Or is your real issue not about the definition of words, but about whether the State should extend rights to a minority that are currently enjoyed by the majority?

If it’s the latter I think you should be more honest about what you’re debating.

I may have trouble writing good sentences for media releases – which is what I was acknowledging before

But I have no problem understanding the definition of marriage and understanding it’s historical and cultural significance and purpose – and I didn’t even take history at school !!!

David Favel

31 July 2012 at 12:09 am

Well I got a 72% in school cert english, plus 60 something in history, so from now on I will be preparing the Family First press releases.

Matty Smith

31 July 2012 at 12:32 am

you cannot demand acceptance, it has to be given freely.
I don’t know that this is true, Bob. Christians demanded acceptance once, it was not handed to them, nor given freely. The same is true of interracial couples, although I realise anti-gay campaigns balk at comparisons between sexuality and race. The gay community demands acceptance because, and I know you disagree, homosexuality is a harmless minority permutation of human sexuality. I don’t have any authoritarian wishes – people are making up their minds – and I strongly suspect you’re as much on the wrong side of history as the judge who told the Lovings of Virginia that:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Gay couples DO have children, though by means you disapprove of (except perhaps when they adopt orphaned or neglected relatives, as sometimes happens). Gay couples do assist both in raising AND producing the next generation. What you mean to say is: “I do not LIKE that gays have families, I do not think they SHOULD”. Many gay couples already do have children. Many more, those in my generation, intend raising loving and fully functional families.

Claiming that gay families don’t already exist is denialism beyond what your position warrants, but quite aside from that, I’d challenge your assumption that marriage functions only to aid child-rearing, as well as the underlying claims about the history of marriage as a civil contract. These strike me as convenient fictions aligned to your FF religious interpretations moreso than historical truths.

Matty Smith

31 July 2012 at 12:40 am

You have every right to be in that minority of Kiwis that supports Family First. I explicitly stated I do not respect Bob’s views, I did not claim to respect them because I believe in being very honest. I think it’s not only dishonest to claim to respect views you do not, it’s impolite. I tolerate your right to say and believe as you wish, but I do not respect or tolerate some imagined right to enshrine religious intolerances into the laws of a secular society.

Hamish Price

31 July 2012 at 12:51 am

That’s fine, Bob, I accept that you are entitled to have a view on the definition of “marriage”, but I reject that you are an authority on the word.

On the more substantive point, which you didn’t address, do you believe that the State has a responsibility to extend rights to a minority that are currently only enjoyed by a majority?

Ali Preston-Marshall

31 July 2012 at 1:11 am

Sorry to butt in here, but surely your “more substantive point” is the whole point. This is not about a “right”, it’s about redefining marriage altogether. Hamish, have you even READ the website this whole debate is about?? One particularly interesting link you and Matty might both find useful is http://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/gay-marriage/ I hope that works!

“The gay community demands acceptance because, and I know you disagree, homosexuality is a harmless minority permutation of human sexuality.”

I disagree that it is harmless. Male homosexuals and bisexuals account for over 50% of HIV infections but only make up 2% of the population. The bisexual connection does affect the rest of us. It is an outrage that the taxpayer funds the NZ AIDS Foundation that is more concerned about homosexual “rights” than reducing the incidence of HIV for all of us.

Hamish Price

31 July 2012 at 2:26 am

Do you believe that everybody has a right to be treated equally under the law, Bob? Or do only the majority have such a right?

Matty Smith

31 July 2012 at 3:36 am

Hi Chuck. I know your posts well from across the years.

Lots of groups are disproportionately affected by certain diseases. MALE homosexuals are disproportionately affected by AIDS, it is true. The NZ AIDS Foundation does an excellent job promoting safe sex practices among homosexual and heterosexual people. Homosexuality does not spread AIDS. Unsafe sex spreads AIDS, and the gay community has a historic problem with unsafe sex that many people are fighting hard to change through better education. But homosexuality itself is harmless and, although I don’t think it’s very important point, natural. (I don’t think it’s an important point because some terrible things are “natural”. Breast cancer is “natural”. It’s also horrible. We could get side-tracked by some theodicy on that point. 😛 ) Lesbians are substantially *less* likely to contract HIV than either gay men or heterosexual couples, so you seem to be leaving roughly half of all homosexuals out of the picture entirely.

At any rate, lots of groups are disportionately affected by health problems. The Maori community has a serious problem with smoking, but I hope I don’t see you claiming that being Maori is harmful.

And also, just what do you advocate? Doing away the with AIDS Foundation and sex education and just letting the disease run wild? Abstinence-only education (which the best quality research shows increases STI transmission and does not decrease teen pregnancies)?

Try this one.
You can give men and women equal rights – but you don’t have to redefine ‘man’ and ‘woman’ to do that

Chuck Bird

31 July 2012 at 7:44 pm

Hi Matty, if you know my post well you would not respond in such a manner. If you took note of what I said it could save you life.

I will assume you define safe sex as using a condom. Homosexual sodomy is not safe even if a condom is used. You do not have to listen to me or even a doctor who has researched sexual safety and dangerous misinformation taught in schools. If you have any sort of an open you may like to hear what Dr Miriam Grossman has to say.

When you have read it we can have an intelligent discussion. I forgot to mention Rotello is homosexual but he is intelligent and does not want to end up HIV+ positive like so many homosexuals because they worship the condom.

Breast cancer and smoking related illnesses are not relevant because they are not infectious diseases.

What I advocate is that the government stop funding the AIDS Foundation and stop endorsing it and allowing it to be involved spreading their misinformation to school children.

My personal view is that trying to teach school children to abstain for sex till married which could be in their thirties is neither effective or realistic. However encouraging them to delay sex particularly if they are not already sexually active and explaining the true risks based on science and the laws of probability is far better than just use a condom and you will be all right.

Anyhow I hope that answers your questions. Let me know when you have read Sexual Ecology.

Rhona

31 July 2012 at 9:15 pm

Chuck, I honestly wonder if you’ve thought through the consequences of cessation of funding to the AIDS Foundation as you advocate. Do you want the homosexual and lesbian lobby propelled toward the euthanasia cause if that is the case, because I certainly do not.

Hardly. If the AIDS Foundation isn’t funded, who will advocate for access to life-prolonging medication for AIDS sufferers? If that happens, then, as occurred in Oregon in the early nineties, some AIDS sufferers will back euthanasia as the only option to avoid suffering. We can only be thankful that they’re there to provide access to medication that prolongs the lives of chronically and terminally ill people.

Chuck seems to see things from the perspective of illicit sex, I see them from the need for palliative care.

Chuck Bird

1 August 2012 at 1:12 am

Rhona, have you checked out the links I sent Matty. If not I suggest you do. I do not beleive you are a mind reader and know how I see things.

Do you believe telling young people condoms will prevent them from being infected with HIV if they practice homosexual intercourse is responsible and our taxpayers dollars should pay for this dangerous misinformation?

Matty Smith

1 August 2012 at 3:59 am

Chuck, I think you are battling a strawman. I read a review of Sexual Ecology, not having access to the book, and it sounds like it is forwarding a view I agree with, loosely, though I can’t be certain without reading the book. But, importantly, it also sounds like a view promoted by the AIDS Foundation, and a lot of gay men I know. I certainly have no illusion that a condom is some sort of ironclad protection against STIs, and I’ve never seen any AIDS Foundation work that promotes such a worrying idea.

Grossman’s site is still down.

Chuck Bird

1 August 2012 at 1:36 pm

Matty, it is nice to engage in civilised debate. On KB the activists use tactics similar to what happened to the Protect Marriage web site to try and shut down debate. Firstly here is a better link with a lot more reviews. I have the book and have read it. I would hope it would be available at public libraries as I hope would be Grossman’s book.

In response to you last comment the AIDS Foundation may not have said using condoms and lube is a fool proof way of not contracting HIV they strongly implied it. The following message was on the main page on their web site for years.

“Keeping sex safe has nothing to do with who you have sex with, how often you do it or how many people you have sex with.

Keeping safe is as simple as not sharing cum or other body fluids: use a condom and water based lube every time you f***.”

That message I beleive was up the whole time of the Clark government when the AIDS Foundation though they were untouchable.

It is not just people like me who think it outrageous that taxes fund this evil organisation but some homosexuals as well.

I do not know if you know Michael Coote. I met him on a couple of occasions when we were both in the ACT Party. He is openly homosexual but seldom goes on about it. He wrote and article titled “None so Queer” in the Free Radical some years ago condemning homosexual activism in general and the the AIDS Foundation in particular.

Rhona

1 August 2012 at 4:17 pm

Again, though, Chuck, you miss the point. If we treat AIDS sufferers like ‘diseased pariahs,’ then we will propell the homosexual and lesbian communities into the welcoming (and opportunistic) arms of the euthanasia advocacy lobby.

It’s all very well to concentrate on sexual probity or otherwise when it comes to the AIDS Foundation, but it also provides a useful liaison point to lobby for palliative care in that context. They provide a very useful role in ensuring best practise medical care and constant access to life-prolonging medication.

As a retired nurse, and as a faithful Catholic, I cannot fault it for its more constructive role in the context of palliative care.

Chuck Bird

1 August 2012 at 7:48 pm

Rhona, you miss the point. I have mentioned this before. I have been a supporter of Family First for some time. I do not make the policies and priorities. That is up to Bob and the Board of Reference. To the best of knowledge Family First is not aligned to any political party and is not aligned to any religion let alone particular denomination. I could be corrected.

“we treat AIDS sufferers like ‘diseased pariahs ”

Where have I ever suggested that?

I doubt if I would agree with your views on euthanasia or aborting and really doubt if I would agree with you view on birth control. Suppose Maryan Street’s bill on euthanasia had got drawn. I may not agree with Family First’s position and probably not yours. I would not be continually trying to undermine Family First’s policy and challenge many of your comments.
I would look at the bigger picture. Family First has many policy’s I support like being pro family, pro parental authority which involves may issues. For example the right of parents to discipline their child, the right of parents to be informed about their child’s education on sex, to be notified about them be given birth control and abortions.
Something the homosexuals do not seem to understand is that by them aggressively demanding what they consider rights diminishes public acceptance by many people.

It seems to me you are somewhat obsessed with euthanasia. It is a complex issue. By continually arguing that issues relating to homosexual issues should be put on the back burner and we should focus issues relating to your Catholic faith you are not helping your cause.